Publicly Viewable Group Discussions

No, you can still do that, you just have to create a private group chat as discussed in the article. I guess I just don't get why that isn't the default option.

I agree, I'd like the default to still remain private comments. That's the main point I always saw for group discussions in the first place.

I had to disband "creeps." I was afraid of being manslaughtered.

winsomecowboy...does this mean certain of us cannot gather behind the topic and privately slag the participants in the public forum?

People might get the sense that you're willing to say things that are uncensored and potentially unpopular!

I am missing some of this logic.....If lets say a friend comments that is in a group that I am not in, lets say "Sexvine" then that shows up in the "New comments tracker from my friends" yet I cannot comment on that article because I am not in that group, only the public discussion group.

That seems backasswards to me. If some of my friends are having a chat in a group on a article, then fine, but if I am not in that group, then don't tell me about it, that tracker add's up fast enough already !

So for each friend, I have to go to each group under this main article and disable the tracker from that group then right ? So each group has a independent tracker that is not connected to the main tracker of this article I assume.

I had 15 notices on this one article and all of them were from friends, but none of them were from groups that I belonged to, so that is what I found frustrating as it was somewhat of a time consuming bouncing around to read comments like "tee hee I can post here but others cannot"

Thanks for the explanation. Hope you can understand my view also. I sure the "fad" of it will die down and it will be a non issue.

I had to think about this all night.

These conversations will be uninterrupted by anyone not a member of the group.

So, if I want to have a conversation with the Anti-Spam group members about what we consider spam, and different ways of rooting it out, and tips on how to tell if it is, yadda yadda, we can have that discussion and it will be viewable by non-members, who can then use all that good information, but not pop into the thread and say things like "Oh, Viki, you're so pretty, may I please worship at your feet forever?" like they always seem to do.

But, I'm kinda with you on this. How often are we really going to need that as an option?

I thought about it all night and still couldn't come up with anything good. Oh well.

However....In the case of a spammer. If we are talking back and forth in the Anti-Spam group instead of the Public Group, the count does not increase on the comment counter, so at least you would avoid driving that seed/article any closer to the front page.

I still think that people will just read the thread and then make comments about that thread on the public thread.

Yeah, you're probably right, Brian. I'd like to know what prompted them to make this change.

It's a bit of an out-there theory, but maybe the Newsvine team wants reputable groups that are pseudo-sponsored by Newsvine/MSNBC to hold discussions on important topics so that they can scoop the content for publication on MSNBC.

Just a thought. :)

Oooh, nice brain you've got there Noah!

Does this mean I have to stop being obnoxious on my group threads?

If that's the case, I want to be able to invite people who are making particularly insightful comments in the public thread (you know, the main public thread, the more different public thread) to the "private public thread" even if they're not a member of the group.

Otherwise, I'll feel that I have to juggle my comment priorities, and managing two threads will sometimes mean ignoring a the main thread, to focus on the "msnbc" thread...

It all gets so confusing!

Does this mean I have to stop being obnoxious on my group threads?

Hell no, thats your best part :-)

It is a bit confusing, Brian.

I hate to complain (really, I do), but there are so many changes we really need (new categories, etc.) and I'm having a hard time getting excited about one I don't see a need for.

Yeah we need a ! thingy to report for Wrong Language Dude... (Please Post in English)

That's a good point -- I understand why that green bar would be there on the group tags, but if I'm on the "public discussion" tab, do I need the green bar to remind me that I'm posting my comment to a public discussion?

That's a good point -- I understand why that green bar would be there on the group tags, but if I'm on the "public discussion" tab, do I need the green bar to remind me that I'm posting my comment to a public discussion?

Hey, Brian and I agree on something! 2008, so far, is much different than 2007!

Building on that it says:

"You are posting this comment to a Public Discussion"

on the Public Discussion tab -- but also on every other tab. That's a bit confusing from a usability standpoint. That first tab should probably be called something other than "Public Discussion" if every tab is now a public discussion by default.

Scott, we agree on 90% of the topics we post on. One disagreement which wasn't even that big of a deal doesn't mean much, in the grand scheme of things.

That's my feeling, let me know if its to private groups, otherwise I am going to assume its public.

The only thing I can think of, is if you look at CBS, CNN and other newsfeeds, they do give you a warning that your comments will be in the Public Domain.

Brian, I'm glad to hear you say that.

I agree with your suggestion regarding the tabs.

Hurrah!

Weird.... my membership to 'condensed milk' is still pending, but I could start a condensed milk group discussion here. But maybe that's why it's not showing up? Definite bug there. Let me confirm with masculists.

OK, what happens is it looks like it's going to work, but it doesn't seem to save. When the screen comes up again there is no comment, you instead see the 'start a new group discussion' list again. So I guess the bug is just that pending groups should not show up in your available list when you go to start a new group discussion.

I thought the group discussions were back to being private...I can't see any reason why they should default to public either.

When you publish an article to a group, currently the empty threads that are automatically created default to public.

Maggie if you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask. :)